Following Orders

As you might imagine, the kerfuffle in the UK over Catholic adoption agencies wanting an exemption in the law so that they do not have to consider gay couples as prospective adopters of children does not make me feel kindly disposed towards the Catholic hierarchy. And now, perhaps predictably enough, the Anglicans are closing ranks with the Catholics.

And, as usual, Ophelia, over at ButterfliesAndWheels, casts some light through the gloom.

Frankly, it seems to me that the Catholic adoption agencies are swirling in a cesspit of their own making.* They do not appear to recognise that the overriding factor here is the well-being of the children, instead they prefer to focus on their particular cherries that have been plucked from a set of ancient tales by multiple authors. If they do feel obliged to close their agencies, rather than consider all couples as prospective adopters on their own merits, then so be it. Apparently, they only fulfilled 4% of the 2,900 adoptions in the UK last year anyway, and that gap should be able to be filled.

And I cannot pass without a comment on Ruth Kelly, Minister for Women and Equality. As she is also Roman Catholic, and a member of Opus Dei, one could be forgiven for thinking that the phrase "conflict of interest" might well pass through one’s mind as a particular danger in her case.

I think that she would be well advised to reflect on the political circumstances of Charles E. Wilson in the Truman administration. He was the CEO of General Motors, before he was tapped to enter the Truman Administration as US Secretary of Defense. He was asked if, as Secretary of Defense, he could make a decision (in his role as Secretary) that would be adverse to the interests of General Motors. Wilson answered affirmatively but added that he could not conceive of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa." It was quite rightly pointed out to him that in his role as US Secretary of Defense, his task was to do what was right for the country, and not for General Motors.

Similarly, Ruth Kelly should take a decision that is right for the children and the country, and not for her particular religion. I await with interest to see the outcome.

I see also that Martin Newland, in a Comment is Free piece in The Guardian, argues that "in opposing the new law on gay rights and adoption, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor is simply doing his job".

That’s as may be, but I will run the risk of invoking Godwin’s law by saying that in a very real sense he could also be said to be following orders. I watched an interview on BBC yesterday wherein the Cardinal was clearly uncomfortable about what he had to say, but nevertheless stated the party line.

When it boils down, then what the Catholic agencies are doing is wanting to turn their backs on people who could help rebuild children’s lives. They can claim conscience all they like, but their conscience, in my view is wanting. Steve Bell points out what, in all honesty, I think lies at its heart.

*With acknowledgements for that lovely phrase to Sir James Anderton, the former Chief Constable of Manchester.

Update: Oh-ho! Is Cherie the real Eminence Grise here? Can’t say I’d be surprised.